Full story
Grant cuts tied to politics
The Trump administration acknowledged in court documents that it canceled $7.6 billion in grants for hundreds of clean energy projects “based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state,” targeting 16 states that voted for Democrat Kamala Harris in 2024.
“Trump administration admits grants for clean energy were canceled based on politics Trump administration admits grants for clean energy were canceled based on politics WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration has acknowledged in court documents that it canceled $7”
The Associated Press said the administration’s admission contradicted repeated assertions by Energy Secretary Chris Wright and other officials that the projects were canceled because they did not adequately advance the nation’s energy needs or were not economically viable.
AP reported that the Energy Department announced last October that 321 funding awards across 223 projects were terminated after review, and that the cuts slashed federal support for projects to build battery plants, develop hydrogen technology, upgrade the electric grid, and capture carbon dioxide emissions.
In the court filing, DOE lawyer Jeff Novak wrote that the White House Office of Management and Budget selected 284 grants for termination from a list of more than 600 grants slated for potential termination.
NBC News reported Novak wrote that, with one exception, “the 284 terminated grants had a recipient location and/or at least one place of performance” in a state that awarded electoral votes to Kamala Harris in 2024 and had two Democratic-caucusing senators.
Democrats call it weaponization
Democrats and environmental groups seized on the court filing, with Rep. Marcy Kaptur and Sen. Patty Murray saying the administration “weaponized” the federal government to kill good jobs and punish working families because of their political views.
AP quoted Kaptur and Murray saying, “Weaponizing the federal government like this is outright un-American, and it’s hardworking families already struggling with sky-high costs who are suffering the consequences of this corrupt abuse of power.”
The Hill reported that DOE lawyer Jeff Novak wrote “DOE accepts that the inclusion of grants in the October notice tranche was based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state,” and that the inclusion was not “based on any programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction, or performance-based factor.”
The Hill also said Energy Department spokesperson Ben Dietderich told multiple news outlets that Wright’s statements “are still correct,” and that “None of the termination decisions were based on political considerations.”
NBC News added that the Energy Department argued the court filing did not show termination decisions were made on a political basis, with Ben Dietderich calling it “a misrepresentation of the court filing and of Mr. Novak’s words.”
What’s next for funding
AP said the cuts were immediately challenged in court, and that more than two dozen Democratic members of Congress led by California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla and Rep. Zoe Lofgren wrote a letter to the Energy Department’s acting inspector general requesting a formal investigation.
“Skip to main content Politics & Policy Trump administration reveals energy grant cuts targeted blue states Gift article Share Expand”
AP reported that the department’s internal watchdog launched an investigation in December, and that government lawyers previously confirmed in a court filing late last year that selection of grants was influenced by whether a grantee’s address was located in a “Blue States.”
The Guardian said the acknowledgment comes as the White House seeks to exert even greater control over billions of dollars in annual federal grants, aiming to have Trump’s political appointees review all federal grants and block or revoke funding if it did not conform to or align with Trump’s priorities.
The Guardian also cited a 400-page proposed rule for federal financial assistance published on 29 May, saying “Discretionary awards must, where applicable, demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.”
NBC News reported that the filing comes as the Office of Management and Budget proposed a new rule that would allow political appointees to gain unprecedented control over the $1 trillion per year provided by federal grants.
